header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Insurrection & court intervention: A high-stakes gamble?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
22 September 2023 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 8041 / Categories: Opinion , Constitutional law , International
printer mail-detail
138367
Could legal proceedings stop Trump from standing for election? Michael Zander raises doubts about the attempt to remove the former president from the ballot

Donald Trump has promised he will run for election in 2024 even if he is convicted on any of the serious criminal charges he faces in both federal and state courts. Surprisingly, there is nothing in the US constitution that would bar him from being president after any such conviction. But there is a provision in the constitution that could stop him being elected—by barring him from being a candidate in the first place.

Sweep & force

Section 3 of the 14th amendment provides that no person shall hold public office who, having taken an oath as an officer of the United States to support the constitution of the United States, ‘shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same’.

Section 3 was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War. Its purpose was to prevent secessionists from returning

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
NLJ this week: A prince no more?
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll